Contracts with Eircom

dahamsta

I have a legal query about my favourite company in the whole wide world. <adam blows a big sloppy kiss at Phil Nolan> Probably belongs in Business/Economy but I've been working sceptre too hard in there...

On the 25th or 26th of July, Eircom disconnected my ISDN lines. I was well behind on payments to them, and although I was paying them almost double my bill every month in a concerted effort to clear the outstanding amount, I accept fully that they were entitled to do so. For the record, there was no maliciousness involved, it happened simply because business was bad and I couldn't afford to pay such large bills. (We won't get into /why/ the bills were so large, that belongs in another thread. Any other thread.)

On or about the 30th of July I received a bill from Eircom, which included calls up until I was cut off, and line rental for the next month. I was starting a new job at the time, I put it aside. On the 15th of August, I received a "Termination Notice", which brought great joy and laughter to the Beecher household. On the 3rd of September I received another bill, again including line rental for the next month. And today I received another bill, which not only had the line rental but also a "balance of committed spend" for Eircom optimiser. So, to get to the questions:

a) Is my contract with Eircom now null and void?
b) If so, is it nullified from when Eircom disconnected me, or from the date of the "Termination Notice"?
c) Can I tell Eircom to take a running jump with the charges they levied outside the contract?

The Notice: Notice is hereby given terminating fortwith the Agreement made between you and Eircom Ltd. or, as the case may be Eircom Ltd's predecessor in title Eircom PLC or Board Telecom Eireann, or the Minister for Posts and Telegraph, in respect of telephone service at MY ADDRESS. This notice is provided for under the Telecommunications Scheme, subject to which you accepted telephone service under the said Agreement.

Thanks,
adam

Paddy20

Re:- Contracts with Eircom?

You state that you were paying them almost double your bill every month in a concerted effort to clear the outstanding amount.

Important Question:- Had you reached an arrangement with Eircom "Credit control Management" to pay a fixed amount per month or bi-monthly off your arrears and did they confirm the said arrangement in writing to you, and if so have you retained that letter?

Also: Do not answer this one if you do not wish too ?

Question:- Did you keep paying the agreed amount to them on a monthly or bi- monthly basis, as agreed with credit control?- If so and theydisconnected you without warning. Then they have a legalcase to answer.

I am in just a bit of a rush just now, but will check later to see if you have replied to me, feel free to PM me if it more appropriate,
because if there is one thing wehave in common it is our dislike for Eircom?

Yours,

paddy20

sceptre

Adam

Sent you a PM

At the moment with my poor knowledge of (and negligible interest in) contract law, I'm guessing that the answers are:

a) Not "void" but rescinded by them due to an implied repudiatory breach of terms on your part (in other words: they thought you weren't going to pay, even though you were paying off the original bill, so they've pulled your service). I suspect what they were really looking for was all the money to be paid at once - but they were the ones to make the decision to kill the service rather than ringing you.

b) Not all that sure - I suspect from when they cut you off unless there's a provision in the connection contract you signed to mention billing you for the last month after notification by either side.

c) Depends on the answer to (b) but certainly the bills received since the beginning of September don't have to be paid - they certinly killed the contract "forthwith" when they sent the letter out, even if they didn't earlier.


I'm assuming you had no agreement with the Credit department, partly because you'd have mentioned it (as it would be very relevant) and partly because like me, you wouldn't have bothered.

dahamsta

Sent you a PM

Yip. Ta.

Not "void" but rescinded by them due to an implied repudiatory breach of terms on your part

[ Ha! You just made "repudiatory" up, didn't you? Encarta spat it back at me anyway. It said "WTF!?" ]

Hokay. Although I thought it was quite odd that they didn't actually list the reason(s) for termination. Of course it's obvious in my case, but I would have thought that that was beside the point; that they would have had to inform you whether or which. Perhaps they should? (I mean hypothetically.)

they were the ones to make the decision to kill the service rather than ringing you.

Not strictly true, they did ring me several times to ask me to pay, and most polite they were about it too. I presume that this is because I was a business customer, Eircom have always been much more accomodating to business (which even as a businessman I think is wrong, but that's neither here nor there). When they rang, they explained that I was in arrears and asked (again, politely) if I was looking after it. I told them on each occasion that I was, and within a few days sent them a cheque for about €350 (my bills were ~€200 at the time).

The whole thing has been a rather odd affair from start to finish to be honest. This wasn't the first time they cut me off, in fact it's the third if memory serves. The first time was rather abrupt, I had been chancing my arm with them for a while and paying my bills a month in arrears and all of a sudden, poof, my lines died. I thought it might be a fault so I rang and after a bit of mild wrangling I went into my local post office, paid the bill, got a transaction number to give to the lovely lady and she had me reconnected within a day or two. Fair dues.

The second one was a little odder, it was done when I'd let my bill get away from me a little but it happened with no phone calls or notification whatsoever. Like I said earlier, I was having trouble with ieWebs at this stage so I reckoned that this time I'd let it slide and hooked myself up to the family line. Bizarrely though, a week or two later the phone rang and when I picked up an Eircom accounts person explained I was in arrears and asked if I was looking after it. I jacked back into the ISDN and lo and behold, I'm back.

I stayed hooked up for a month or two after that, without ever even opening a bill, until it died again the last time. I've always wondered about that whole thing, whether it was an administrative or technical error, or whether some dude in Eircom was having a bit of fun.

I suspect from when they cut you off unless there's a provision in the connection contract you signed to mention billing you for the last month after notification by either side.

You may have thought of this, but just in case: Remember that part of what we're talking about here is line rental, which is billed a month in advance. I have no idea where I stand on the discount scheme, which is actually the killer - they tacked €126.97 onto my last bill because of that. I don't think they ever mentioned a separate contract though, and I certainly don't think I should be paying for it when they've terminated our agreement.

certainly the bills received since the beginning of September don't have to be paid - they certinly killed the contract "forthwith" when they sent the letter out, even if they didn't earlier.

So I guess this applies to the discount scheme too? It'd be cool if it was, it'd bring the total I could knock off my bill to over €250.

I'm assuming you had no agreement with the Credit department, partly because you'd have mentioned it (as it would be very relevant) and partly because like me, you wouldn't have bothered.

No, I had no agreement with the credit department, I paid them what I could afford when I could afford it, which I reckon was a reasonable effort. When they cut me off, I put the bills right at the bottom of my pile and said fvck them. I'm doing ok again now and I want to clear it, but I'm not really keen to start clearing it until I'm sure that they're not going to try and stiff me for the other stuff. Hence my post, I'd like to be sure of what I'm saying when I ring them. I'll have an audience, obviously. (I can wrap a whole party around one of my telerants. )

Sceptre, once again, thanks for all your help. Boards rocks. Isn't it wonderful, though, that I can still get online, I can still come in here and ask these questions, and I can still have a good old bitch about the old bastards when the mood takes me? Let this be a lesson to Eircom: You can take aways my ISDN lines, but you'll never take away my FREEDOM!

heh

adam

sceptre

Originally posted by dahamsta
[ Ha! You just made "repudiatory" up, didn't you? Encarta spat it back at me anyway. It said "WTF!?" ]

(OT)
Surprisingly (given my poor knowledge of legalese) I didn't. I can only find one satisfactory reference to it on the web (almost all references are to employment law)

A party repudiates where he wrongfully refuses to comply with his contractual obligations (eg where the vendor wrongfully refuses to complete or the purchaser fails to pay the purchase price) giving the innocent party the right to call off the contract. This refusal might be express or implicit from conduct. A 'repudiatory breach' occurs where the innocent[1] party can terminate the contract as a result of the breach as distinct from simply recovering damages for the breach.

The word seems to have just been made up [2]in 1882 (one line in the OED), used in one UK law case in 1884 (Mersey Steel v Naylor Benzon) and thousands of idiot lawyers have been using it since.



[1]yeah, I'm using the word "innocent" to apply to Eircom. Stop the presses - you'll never see it again
[2]Obviously by just turning "repudiate" (from the latin repudiare)into an adjective. Lazy feckers. No-one except lawyers ever seems to have liked the word

Slutmonkey57b

The decision to cut off your service (even on a temporary basis) would have meant termination of the contract as far as I know - the contract being of the type "eircom promises to provide ISDN to your gaff for business use, in the name of You to be paid by You monthy" - your failure to pay on time could also be deemed to be failure to fulfill the terms of the contract, therefore entitling them not to continue providing the service. In any case, the provision of who is entitled to what when the other side fails in its obligations should also be in the contract (ie your contract may state that is a 12 month contract that allows the provider to extract full payment for the service even in the event that you terminate the service or contract early) - This is a usual provision that happens to get ignored in 90% of cases, esp. residential ones, but you might want to check. They could be entitled to charge you the full whack for the remainder of the contract even though they are no longer providing the service.

I think there may also have been a change in the law recently providing for the payment of invoices past the due date so you might want to check out what they're entitled to do under statutory debtor's legislation. Also check they haven't stuck you in Stubb's Gazette.

Basically, they're probably entitled under the contract (and the debtor's laws) to a lot more than they're prepared to do to you. Ring them and find out rather than leave it under a pile of paper, especially as it's your business. You don't want to be struck off the companies' register.

Slutmonkey57b

Encarta is an Encylopaedia (and a bad one at that), you want a dictionary.

Repudiate is indeed a real word, though repudiatory may well not be. (legal definitions are removed from the applications of normal grammer)

dahamsta

Encarta is an Encylopaedia

Indeed it is. And it is also a dictionary, Encarta World English Dictionary to be precise.

and a bad one at that

Can't argue with that, but it's bloody convenient to have an encyclopedia, atlas, dictionary and thesaurus ready to do my bidding at a moments notice. I don't use to for anal arguments, I use it for quick reference.

you want a dictionary

A wha? Do you always talk to people like they're idiots? Would you like a hand down off that horse?

[ Thanks for the other commentary though. ]

adam

spongebob

My reading of it is that it is easier (legally) to cut off ISDN than POTS

POTS comes under the heading of a Universal Service ISDN doesn't. A Universal Service is a quasi 'right' and with it comes an obligation to agree a repayment plan between Eircom and the Consumer (read Citizen).

....not that I wan't to make a lawyer rich arguing the nuances in the Supreme court for me.

M

dahamsta

My reading of it is that it is easier (legally) to cut off ISDN than POTS

I don't think that really applies Muck, since ISDN runs over the POTS and they cut /everything/ off. Anyway, I have more important stuff to sort out today - BOICCS jumped the queue this morning, and I found myself on emergency tax - so I'll let this run for a few days to see if anything else turns up.

Thanks,
adam

Slutmonkey57b

Originally posted by dahamsta
you want a dictionary

A wha? Do you always talk to people like they're idiots? Would you like a hand down off that horse?

[ Thanks for the other commentary though. ]

adam

I certainly don't. It's a nice comfy horse and means I don't have to tire my little leggies out walking around.

dahamsta

I certainly don't. It's a nice comfy horse and means I don't have to tire my little leggies out walking around.

Give us a spin off it so.

adam